At all times everything remained the same, from memory speeds to voltage, the only thing that was changed was the number of active cores (via bios).

My results don't seem to match up with your theoretical numbers.

Once I reached the 4 core level I did a single cpu test, to remove any sort of OS overhead as best I could to find the actual "Per core" performance.

The performance cost is higher the less cores I have. However this is not offset in anyway by a 100% 95% 95% 95% type of scaling as was presented.

Here is a graph from my results all else being equal outside of core count.

The point of this is not that a 4 core Intel chip is faster than a 12 core AMD server chip, please ignore that. The point was more to the fact that core scaling seems to be pretty spot on with what you'd expect with additional cores to help alleviate any os overhead. With 2.02 being "the max" I should achieve, the 1.92 single core result is therefore .1 below what it should be, if we then take the two core result, which is 3.93 and take that from 4.04 which is the "max" you get a total loss of 0.11 points, which is petty much spot on with the 100% result of 1 core. Four cores results in a difference of 0.09 off the "max" possible of 8.08.

I hope this helps to clear up some of the misinformation the mythical numbers presented earlier in this thread may have caused.Edited by BallaTheFeared - 5/27/11 at 2:03pm

Nope, I don't. If I wanted one all I have to do is ask. I just spent 2 weeks in europe, one in boston and I turn around next week for 2 weeks in italy for vacation (finally.) Realistically, when would I have time to play with one of these, I've got about 60K miles under my belt so far this year.

The only thing I built was a zacate system, sweet little home server, runs at ~35W under load. Sweet.

Nope, I don't. If I wanted one all I have to do is ask. I just spent 2 weeks in europe, one in boston and I turn around next week for 2 weeks in italy for vacation (finally.) Realistically, when would I have time to play with one of these, I've got about 60K miles under my belt so far this year.

The only thing I built was a zacate system, sweet little home server, runs at ~35W under load. Sweet.

just got done building that for my room. the e350 gigabyte one with a antec itx case. that thing is pretty cool. runs pretty cool and its actually pretty fast for what it needs to do. play my blue ray movies and music. got it hooked on a sony 46" Led panel running at 1920x1080. =)

Nope, I don't. If I wanted one all I have to do is ask. I just spent 2 weeks in europe, one in boston and I turn around next week for 2 weeks in italy for vacation (finally.) Realistically, when would I have time to play with one of these, I've got about 60K miles under my belt so far this year.

The only thing I built was a zacate system, sweet little home server, runs at ~35W under load. Sweet.

I have to say it is pretty cool that you still find the time to visit a site like this and give some information. I'm not sure if I would have the patience repeating things and dealing with CPU power hungry fans as a server guy. Enjoy your vacation.

I know not much is known about this chipset yet at all, that having been said, I have a few questions:

1) The 8 core statistic on the higher end Zambezi FX chips...is this 8 REAL cores, or is it like Intel's Hyperthreading?

2) Is it possible to put multiple FX chips on a single board, or does AMD do things the same as Intel where consumer level stuff will not intercommunicate and you need the professional level chips (Xeon/Opteron) to run on multi proc boards?

I have zero loyalty to Intel whatsoever...in fact I'd likely be more inclined to go with AMD to spite them, ESPECIALLY on their more high end chips just to cast my dollar vote towards increasing the competition.

Just wanted to clear up those couple main questions I had if anyone knows anything yet about this.

2P board needs opteron's .....

bulldozer is module based .. but with real cores .. so yes it will have 8 real cores ...